The problem being that there is no portion of Egyptian history that nicely lends itself to the Exodus narrative. The closest in my mind is the Hyksos invasion.

You also raise a good point sir.

The question I would raise is: Did the Egyptians truly hide or erase the Exodus?

For my two cents no. Every time they have tried to hide or erase someone from their history they have failed. I.E. Akenaten, and Nefertari.

So if the they failed to successfully erase them then surly something as monumental as an entire people fleeing the country would not be able to be hidden.

The Hykos is commonly raised as having parallels, but if true then would it not throw everything on it's head? For the Hykos (Hebrews) would then have been violent aggressors against Egypt not the poor beleaguered people that the Bible would have us believe.

The question I would raise is: Did the Egyptians truly hide or erase the Exodus?

For my two cents no. Every time they have tried to hide or erase someone from their history they have failed. I.E. Akenaten, and Nefertari.

So if the they failed to successfully erase them then surly something as monumental as an entire people fleeing the country would not be able to be hidden.

The Hykos is commonly raised as having parallels, but if true then would it not throw everything on it's head? For the Hykos (Hebrews) would then have been violent aggressors against Egypt not the poor beleaguered people that the Bible would have us believe.

Yes exactly. Though according to mainstream scholarship, it has become accepted that the Talmud was not written until after the Babylonian captivity. Their time in Egypt may have been distant memories at this point, and the narrative may have been heavily influenced by their recent captivity in Babylon. So they may have been equating ancient memories with fresh memories.

Yes exactly. Though according to mainstream scholarship, it has become accepted that the Talmud was not written until after the Babylonian captivity. Their time in Egypt may have been distant memories at this point, and the narrative may have been heavily influenced by their recent captivity in Babylon. So they may have been equating ancient memories with fresh memories.

Ah,

That is a strong point. You may be on to something here. Perhaps the Exodus is less about the Egyptians then it is about the Babylonians?

That is the problem with spoken history. Every time the tale is told a very small part can be lost. A couple of hundred years later and you have a nearly different story then what may have actually happen.

So in review, the Hebrews may very well have been violent invaders of Egypt who were expelled by a Pharaoh who still remains nameless and probably was not Ramses the Great. So in revenge OR as may to save face they tell a creative story of their time there to try and soften the blow of their expulsion?

That is a strong point. You may be on to something here. Perhaps the Exodus is less about the Egyptians then it is about the Babylonians?

That is the problem with spoken history. Every time the tale is told a very small part can be lost. A couple of hundred years later and you have a nearly different story then what may have actually happen.

So in review, the Hebrews may very well have been violent invaders of Egypt who were expelled by a Pharaoh who still remains nameless and probably was not Ramses the Great. So in revenge OR as may to save face they tell a creative story of their time there to try and soften the blow of their expulsion?

As for I know the Babylonian Talmud [I've got a copy at home, the section named "Berakhot"] had written in Babylon after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. It's really a late collection of texts, to be honest, with reference to the tale of the Exodus.

But also the first collection of the Tanakh is not that contemporary with the age of the Exodus. It was after the return from the first exile in Babylon [after Nabucodonosor conquered ancient Jerusalem] that substantially the version we know came to exist. The "project" was coded around he VIII century BCE [so before the destruction of the first Temple, but some centuries after the Exodus].

The problem being that there is no portion of Egyptian history that nicely lends itself to the Exodus narrative. The closest in my mind is the Hyksos invasion.

Only because people are looking at wrong periods and wrong dynasties. There are four pillars that the Egyptian chronology, but apart from the first one, the other three fall apart.

1. The sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal (664 BC). (This pillar is pretty solid, and even New Chronologists don't have a problem with it).

2. Identifying Pharoah Shoshenq I with the Biblical Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25-26 (925 BC). This sets the beginning of the 22nd dynasty to 945 BC.
(Ironic that one of the main pillars of the conventional chronology (CC) relies on Biblical chronology, but etymologically Shoshenq does not match up with Shishak; but it does with Ramesses full name Usermaatre-setepenre Ramessu-meryamun

The Hittites transliterated this as:

Washmuaria-shatepnaria Riamashesha-maiamana

In other Semitic languages Shoshenq the transliteration of Egyptian "Sh" is rendered S. Thus in Akkadian, Shoshenq is "Susink". Or the fact that Shoshenq never marched on Jerusalem, but Ramesses II did. In fact if the equation of Shoshenq is Shishak, then Shishak instead marched on his ally, instead of marching against the enemy of his ally (as Shishak is described as being an ally of Jeroboam, who attempted to incite rebellion against the Northern Kingdom of Israel against Solomon, but ultimately failed, and fled to Egypt). Shoshenq's campaigns in the area do not match up even remotely with that of Shishak's, given that Shoshenq predominantly marches against Northern Israel.

And in fact, equating the Biblical Shishak as Shoshenq in order to help compose the Third Intermediate Period (TIP for short) also breaks Phoenician Chronology.

In an inscription from Byblos describe the sequence of kings:

Abibaal I as contemporary of Shoshenq I

Elibaal I contemporary of Osorkon I

Shipitbaal

Thus, instead of breaking the Phoenician chronology, simply due to the fact that Assyrian evidence dates "Shipitbaal (son of Elibaal) king of Byblos" in 740 BC. Based on this fact alone, that's a period of 200 years between the dating of Abibaal (using the Egyptian CC based on these four pillars) and Shipitbaal, and these were successive kings of Byblos.

There is one Biblical person who does match up with Shoshenq I however, which sychronizes with the Phoenician chronology as well. The "saviour" Pharaoh of 2 Kings 13: 1-7. For one thing, this "saviour" campaigned in Northern Israel against the Arameans as described in the Bible, and in the same places that Shoshenq I's campaigns included. And if once reconciles the fact that the Northern Kingdom at this point in time were vassal states of Egypt, it's not hard to deduce why a Pharaoh would march to their rescue.

This aspect fits in with the Phoenician chronology (which ties in with the Assyrian aspect of King Shipitbaal sending tribute to Tiglath-Pilesar III in 740 BC. Obviously with the CC this is too late for Shipitbaal to be a son of a contemporary of Osorkon I, so those who follow it have given the theory that there must have been two kings with the name Shipitbaal, but without offering any sort of evidence, other than that the dates do not match up. But by removing the length of reign dates (which were arbitrarily created) with the NC, it very clearly does.

3. Using the Sothic dating system and the Ebers papyrus to date the accession of Ahmose to 1550 BC. (This pillar has mostly been removed since the work of Peter James. Since the Sothic cycle assumes that the Egyptians made no corrections to it as Sothis continually got out of date. Almost all Egyptologists, CC and obviously NC realize that it can't be relied on).

4. The accession of Ramesses II in 1279 BC based on a lunar date. (The lunar cycle repeats itself every 25 years, which cannot make it a pillar unto itself. It can however be used to fine tune a chronology that is basically correct. However, ultimately this rests on pillars 2 and 3 and their veracity. As can be seen, that even the strongest CC supporters no longer rely on the Sothic cycle (mostly after the work of Peter James et. al in Centuries of Darkness), and based on the evidence that Shoshenq I is not Shishak, this pillar falls as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jari

I have'nt heard of the others but I have heard of David Rohl, was he not influenced in some ways by the bible??

Also I should make it clear that I don't uphold the idea that the exodus does not represent a historical event, what I am saying is that parts of it are fictionalized, clearly. I was attacked by a poster. Sorry if I came off rude.

He may be using the Bible as a historical document, but Rohl in no shape or form identifies himself as a Christian or even a theist. There are some aspects of the Bible he denies, and he considers himself on the part of religion to be agnostic at best.

If we're going to take religious folks at their word about what they profess to believe when they do things contrary to their belief (which has been done numerous times in the religion board), we can't start now and say that this guy isn't what he claims to be and believe.

Placing the Israelites in the Levant is one thing, and we have two archaeological anchors to help us with a date, but determining the Pharaoh(s) who opposed Moses requires us to make too many assumptions.

First - We know the Israelites were in the Levant in the time of Merneptah.

Second - The Altar at Mt Ebal, which the Israelites claimed to have built has two phases. Scarabs found in the earliest strata at Mt Ebal were those of Ramesses II.

The first is a firm anchor, the second is a circumstantial anchor (did they really build Mt Ebal?).

And Third, the new Iron Age settlements excavated across the central hill-country were apparently built by a people who adopted new social customs, they were not simply dispossessed Canaanites.
Archaeological excavations published by Larry Herr unearthed settlements in Transjordan around the Late Bronze/Iron I transition which were consistent with those already found in the central hill-country mentioned above.

Taken together we have a reasonable indication that some new-comers did cross the Jordan (from Transjordan to Cisjordan) around the LB/Iron I period and create new settlements, build Mt Ebal, and face the wrath of Merneptah.

Whether these people were already Israelite, or whether they were a mixed multitude who would eventually identify themselves as Israelite is really immaterial. We appear to have the right time window.

The question then becomes from where did these newcomers appear, and how long had they been living in Transjordan.

If, these newcomers were indigenous to Transjordan then we can assume the Exodus was essentially fiction.

If, the newcomers were merely passing through Transjordan from parts unknown, then the 'Ramesside Exodus' argument may still have some fuel left to burn.

However, If, the newcomers had only lived a few generations in Transjordan, evident in the strata, then the Hyksos Exodus may still be on the cards.

I do notice one particular sentence in Judges 11:26 which rarely is considered in chronological assessments, its the proverbial 'thorn in the side' of most biblical chronologists.

While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?

Three hundred years before the time they left Transjordan, just might place the Exodus (assuming it is fact) at the end of the Hyksos period.

Depending which out of the three "Ifs" above can be verified will help us to identify which Pharaoh, if any, was in power in Egypt at the time of the assumed Exodus.

This is getting tiring, and honestly you bore me. Rather than addressing any points your going around in circles.

Sure, you posted a long reply exactly because I bore you. Can you say disingenuine?

Quote:

Yes and like much of the bible, the Exodus has added fiction and exaggerations.

Proof?

Quote:

You question my assertion that the Exodus is a historical event with added exaggerations/Fiction, so you must be by default of the opinion that the oppisite is true, if not why are you posting to me??

Because your claim has no support.

Quote:

Look for it on the other pages, I believe I posted it twice already, so please excuse me if Im reluctant to further wast my time. You can google it also...copy and paste
"Against all the Gods of Egypt" into your search engine.

Google result showed no real evidence to support your claim.

Quote:

Its more conclusive than the idea that the Exodus as told in the bible is factual. We have actual evidence on our side.

Not even close.

Quote:

More spinning and ducking.

Yup, you are.

Quote:

LOL, So one has to prove to you that Bushes don't talk and the longest river in the world can't be turned into blood...O.K bob. You got me..

When even LOL pops out, I knew you had nothing useful to say in a meaningful discussion.

Quote:

Thanks you! All I needed was that, we could have saved ourselves wasted time.